alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.3


 





AMENDMENT TO


SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT


 


 


This Amendment to Securities
Purchase Agreement (this “Amendment”) is dated as of December 12, 2016, between Real Goods Solar, Inc., a Colorado
corporation (the “Company”), and the purchasers identified on the signature pages hereto who have executed this
Amendment.


 


WHEREAS, the Company has
entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”), dated as of December 8, 2016, with
the purchasers identified therein (the “Purchasers”). Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the
meanings set forth in the Purchase Agreement.


 


WHEREAS, Section 5.5 of
the Purchase Agreement requires that an amendment to the Purchase Agreement be approved in writing by the Company and the holders
of at least 50.1% in interest of the Shares based on the initial Subscription Amounts thereunder (the “Requisite Purchasers”)
if the amendment does not disproportionately and adversely impacts one or more Purchasers.


 


WHEREAS, the Company and
the Requisite Purchasers wish to amend the Purchase Agreement by deleting Exhibit B-1 thereto and replacing it in its entirety
by Exhibit B-1 attached hereto.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the Company
and the Requisite Purchasers agree as follows:


 


		1.	Exhibit B-1 of each Purchase Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety by
Exhibit B-1 attached hereto.



 


		2.	Except as specifically amended hereby, the Purchase Agreements remain in full force and effect.



 


		3.	This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original
agreement, and all of which together shall be deemed to be one and the same instrument. Signatures on this Amendment may be delivered
by facsimile or electronic transmission and shall be binding upon the parties so transmitting their signatures.



 


(Signature Pages
Follow)







 




    	 	 	 



     


    

 





IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed by their respective authorized signatories as of the date first
indicated above. 





	REAL GOODS SOLAR, INC.
	 
	 
	By: 	/s/ Dennis Lacey	 
	 	Name: Dennis Lacey	 
	 	Title:   Chief Executive Officer	 





 


 


 





REQUISITE PURCHASERS



 


 


	 	 	 
	Name	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	By:	 	 
	 	 	 
	Name: 		 
	 	 	 
	Title:
#### State v. Kupau

22197

04/20/2000

Vacated & Remanded
# C_2019044EN.01007701.xml

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/77 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/77

---

Action brought on 3 December 2018 — Umweltinstitut München v Commission

(Case T-712/18)

(2019/C 44/103)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Umweltinstitut München — Verein zur Erforschung und Verminderung der Umweltbelastung eV (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. John, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s negative decision of 2 October 2018 (C(2018) 6539 final). |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s negative decision of 2 October 2018 (C(2018) 6539 final).

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission’s negative decision of 2 October 2018 definitively refusing the applicant access to the documents pertaining to the first meeting of the CETA Joint Committee, which took place on 26 and 27 March 2018.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea in law:

Infringement of Article 15(3) TFEU in conjunction with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) since the defendant was not entitled, pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001, to refuse (partial) access to the requested documents.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

---
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC
SPARENTAL, LLC, d/b/a/MSI AVIATION, Complainant,
v. SOMERSET- PULASKI COUNTY AIRPORT BOARD, Respondent. FAA Docket No. 16-13-02

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME
This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based onthe abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practicefor Federally-Assisted AirportEnforcementProceedings, 14 CPRPart 16. Pursuant to 14 CPRPart 16, subpart B, the date bywhich the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby extended to August 18,2014. An extension oftime is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this case.

# ~//rz:_ Randall S. Fiertz Director, Airport Compliance and Management AnalysisCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on AprilLJ, 2014, I caused to beplaced in the United States mail (frrst class mail, postage paid) a true copy ofthe Notice ofExtension ofTime to August 18,2014 for FAA Docket No. 16-13-02 addressed to: Counsel for Complainant: Konrad Kuczak 130 West Second Street, Suite 1010 Dayton, OH 45402
Counsel for Respondent: Rachel Owsley Bethany 

### A. Breetz Stites & Harbison, PLLC 400 WestMarket Street, Suite 1800 Louisville, KY 40202
Hand delivered to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-100



# ~~

Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 932 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to thirdparty charges on consumer telephone bills. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 29, 2016 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY (for herself, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. GRIJALVA, 

Mr. HONDA, and Mrs. BUSTOS) submitted the following resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with 

respect to third-party charges on consumer telephone bills. 

Whereas telephone companies are required to permit third 

parties to bill for services on a consumer’s monthly telephone bill in certain circumstances; 

Whereas ‘‘cramming’’ is the act of placing unauthorized 

charges on a wireline, wireless, or bundled services telephone bill of a consumer; 

Whereas the Federal Communications Commission estimates 

that cramming has harmed tens of millions of people in 

the United States; and 

Whereas existing protections against cramming have not prevented harm to consumers: Now, therefore, be it 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 932 IH 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that protections against cramming should be 

3 improved and consumers should be empowered to stop un4 wanted third-party charges on their telephone bills. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2019423EN.01007201.xml

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/72

---

Order of the General Court of 26 September 2019 — VL and Others v Parliament

(Case T-183/18) (1)

(2019/C 423/85)

Language of the case: English

The President of the First Chamber, Extended Composition, has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.

---
# C_2020399EN.01001602.xml

| 23.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council of the European Union

(Case C-349/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic - Measures directed against certain persons and entities operating in Syria - List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the appellant’s name - Action for annulment)

(2020/C 399/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Almashreq Investment Fund (represented by: E. Ruchat, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Almashreq Investment Fund to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Almashreq Investment Fund to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---
October 8, 1999

22176

#### Van Gundy v. Administrative Director of the Court, State of Hawaii

Affirmed
# C_2020215EN.01001901.xml

| 29.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Pfizer Consumer Healthcare Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-182/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Heading 3005 and heading 3824 - Self-heating patches and belts to relieve pain - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1140 - Invalidity)

(2020/C 215/22)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pfizer Consumer Healthcare Ltd

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Operative part of the judgment

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1140 of 8 July 2016 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature is invalid.

---

(1)  OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.

---
#### Emily E. DIXON, also known as Emily E. Dickson, and Earl I. Dixon, also known as Earl I. Dickson, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Samuel N. ROGERS, Defendant in Error.

No. 36403.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Nov. 23, 1954.

*855Herbert Hope, W. G. Long, Pauls Valley, for plaintiffs in error.

D. P. Parker, M. A. Holcomb, Buffalo, Richard W. Fowler, Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

JOHNSON, Vice Chief Justice.

The defendants filed an application to vacate the judgment on the ground that the summons was irregular. Such proceeding must be by motion under 12 O.S.1951 § 1031. On the 21st day of December, 1953, the trial court overruled the motion. On February 20, 1954, the court overruled a motion for new trial. The notice of intention to appeal was not given until after the latter order. A motion to dismiss has been filed for the reason the order overruling the motion for new trial was unnecessary and did not extend the time to give the notice of appeal. The motion to dismiss must be sustained. The filing and determination of the motion for new trial served no purpose to extend the time for commencing or perfecting the appeal. Thomas v. Richey, 171 Okl. 349, 42 P.2d 489.

In Long v. McMahan, Okl., 258 P.2d 616, it is stated:

> “ ‘Where a party desiring to appeal fails to give notice in open court of his intention to appeal to this court at the time judgment is rendered or within ten days thereafter if motion for new trial is unnecessary, this court is without jurisdiction to review such judgment and an appeal therefrom will be dismissed.’ ”

Appeal dismissed.
#### Ana Koa Corp. v. Boskoff

17319

5/30/97

Vacated and Remanded in part, Affirmed in part
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.04

                             FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
                      FISHER SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL INC.
                   RETIREMENT PLAN FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS

      The Board of Directors hereby amends the Fisher Scientific International
Inc. Retirement Plan for Non-Employee Directors effective as of June 8, 2004.

      Section 2 is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
following:

            An Eligible Director shall be entitled to receive, for the remainder
            of such Eligible Director's lifetime, a retirement benefit at an
            annual rate equal to 50% of the annual basic retainer in effect for
            non-employee directors at the time of such retirement, plus an
            additional 10% of such retainer for each year of Eligible Service in
            excess of five years up to 100% of such retainer for ten or more
            years of Eligible Service.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-4301

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Fernando A. Chavez, also known as * District of Nebraska. Fernando Alvarez Chavez, also known * as Fernando Chavez-Alvarez, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: November 7, 2000 Filed: November 16, 2000

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, HANSEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Fernando Chavez pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Prior to sentencing, he moved to withdraw his plea, contending that his former attorney--who was replaced after the plea because his license to practice law had been suspended-- had not adequately communicated with him and had misled him about his case. The1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the District of Nebraska. -2- district court 1 denied the motion without a hearing and sentenced Chavez to 87 months imprisonment

and 5 years supervised release. Chavez appeals, arguing that the court should have conducted a hearing and should have allowed him to withdraw his plea.
We find no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Bahena , 223 F.3d 797, 807 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review). At the change-of-plea hearing, Chavez was assisted by an interpreter and was accurately informed of the prison term he faced; under oath, Chavez affirmed that he had had sufficient time to speak with his attorney, that he had told his attorney everything the attorney needed to know about his case, that he was satisfied with his attorney’s representation, that he understood the charge again st him, that he was pleading guilty freely and voluntarily, and that no one had promised him a lighter sentence. See id. at 806-07 (under very similar facts, defendant didnot show any fair and just reason for withdrawing plea). Nor did the district court abuse its discretion by not holding a hearing on the motion. See United States v. Wojcik , 60 F.3d 431, 433 (8th Cir. 1995) (court need not hold hearing on pleawithdrawal motion if allegations are not grounds for withdrawal even if true). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 915 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 915

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to 
                             Marcus Garvey.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 28, 2016

    Mr. Rangel (for himself, Ms. Clarke of New York, Mr. Payne, Mr. 
     Jeffries, Mr. Lewis, and Ms. Norton) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to 
                             Marcus Garvey.

Whereas Marcus Mosiah Garvey was born in St. Ann's Bay, Jamaica, on August 17, 
        1887, and emigrated to the United States where he founded the Universal 
        Negro Improvement Association;
Whereas Marcus Garvey was the father of the largest African-American movement 
        for human rights and economic self-sufficiency of all time, attracting 
        millions of followers in the United States, the Caribbean, Latin 
        America, Africa, and Europe;
Whereas Marcus Garvey's philosophy inspired some of the world's great Black 
        leaders;
Whereas leading a movement for economic independence among Black Americans, 
        Marcus Garvey became the target of surveillance and harassment by United 
        States Government law enforcement agencies;
Whereas Marcus Garvey was prosecuted and convicted of mail fraud, imprisoned, 
        and later, deported to Jamaica;
Whereas the case against Marcus Garvey was politically motivated, the charges 
        unsubstantiated, and his conviction unjust;
Whereas millions of petitioners have appealed for his exoneration;
Whereas Marcus Garvey is recognized as a national hero in his native Jamaica, 
        and as a towering figure in nations around the world; and
Whereas Marcus Garvey's life and contributions to the United States should be 
        recognized and appropriate steps taken to restore his name and 
        reputation in this country: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that--
            (1) Marcus Garvey was innocent of the charges brought 
        against him by the United States Government;
            (2) Marcus Garvey was and should be recognized 
        internationally as a leader and thinker in the struggle for 
        human rights; and
            (3) the President should take appropriate measures within 
        his power to clear Marcus Garvey's good name.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 99.1
                              EASTON BANCORP, INC.
                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


     We,  the undersigned, certify that to the best of our knowledge, based upon
a  review  of  the  registrant's  Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period
ended  March  31,  2003  (the  "Report"):

(1)  The  Report  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934,  as  amended;  and

(2)  The  information  contained  in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of  the
     registrant.

                                                EASTON BANCORP, INC.
                                             -----------------------------------
                                                   (Registrant)



Date:  May 7, 2003                By:  /s/ R. Michael S. Menzies, Sr.
      -------------                   -----------------------------------------
                                                 R. Michael S. Menzies, Sr.
                                                 President
                                                 (Principal Executive Officer)



Date:  May 7, 2003                By:  /s/ Pamela A. Mussenden
      -------------                   -----------------------------------------
                                                 Pamela A. Mussenden
                                                 Assistant Treasurer
                                                 (Principal Financial Officer)


<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted form the
     Statement of Financial Position at October 31, 1998 (Unaudited) and the
     Statement of Income for the three months ended October 31, 1998 (Unaudited)
     and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000880121
<NAME>                        Market America, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 AUG-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         29,432,998
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  239,386
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    1,740,314
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               36,205,978
<PP&E>                                         916,741
<DEPRECIATION>                                 550,670
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 37,485,218
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,923,419
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       199
<OTHER-SE>                                     32,480,445
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   37,485,218
<SALES>                                        26,867,213
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               26,867,213
<CGS>                                          6,853,891
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  6,853,891
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               15,639,912
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             832
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                5,005,269
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,881,199
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            4,373,410
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3,124,070
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .16
        



</TABLE>
# C_2018166EN.01004601.xml

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/46

---

Action brought on 22 March 2018 — Porsche v EUIPO — Autec (Motor vehicles)

(Case T-209/18)

(2018/C 166/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: C. Klawitter, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Autec AG (Nuremberg, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the design at issue:

Design at issue: Community design No 1230593-0001

Design at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 January 2018 in Case R 945/2016-3

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity in respect of the contested Community design No 1230593-0001. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity in respect of the contested Community design No 1230593-0001.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 5 of Regulation No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 5 of Regulation No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002.

---
January 14, 1998

20318

#### State v. Reinhardt

Affirmed